Facilitated Communications

[Guest]

Years ago I watched an incredible documentary on 'Facilitated Communication,' done by FrontLine. The idea with FC was that an otherwise non-communicating autistic person can be given the ability to communicate if a 'facilitator' steadies his or her hand and arm enough to use a letter-board to spell out words.

Syracuse University Professor Douglas Biklen was the foremost proponent of FC in the US, which he introduced after having done some work on the subject in Australia. After the technique became more well-known, and lots of incredibly amazing things were happening, a dark side became apparent: some of these autistic kids, by way of their new-found ability to communicate, were able to tell of horrific sexual abuses they had endured at the hands of their fathers/teachers/etc. Fathers were separated from their families, and lawsuits and criminal investigations ensued.

Only after a skeptic (viewed perhaps as a malevolent naysayer out to destroy the good that FC had created) began to ask questions that it began to unravel.

The thing I remember most was the interviews with the professional people who had fallen hook, line and sinker for FC. Looking back on it, they couldn't believe how they had truly believed in it. All the signs had been there for them to see it wasn't real, but the wonderful nature of the promises FC made kept them from noticing or comprehending. Only after being essentially forced to confront the facts were people finally able to see the truth of Facilitated Communications: It didn't work and never had.

I think it is important to note that (I believe) this was not a fraud or a hoax, at least not in the typical sense of the word. Biklen and all the people who were behind the FC movement do not seem to me to be people who were attempting to be deceptive. But, one thing led to another, and the whole thing took on a life of its own. At one point, it was almost like a religion.

Virtually every person involved with Facilitated Communication had a deep-seated belief in its authenticity and usefulness, and knew that it was wonderful blessing for communicating with autistic people. But it wasn't.

My point in posting is this: Something can be considered wonderful and blessed, and not a hoax, and still be absolutely false.

Bottom line for me: Whether Joseph Smith was a fraudster or whether he really believed in what he was doing cannot fully answer the question of whether the LDS church is true. If the argument you make to yourself is that since the Church couldn't possibly be one large 15-million-person conspiracy, then it must be true... you might be looking at it the wrong way.


(The FrontLine episode on Facilitated Communications can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 200920717#)

[_moksha]

Speaking of facilitated communications, did anyone ever type out the term Seer Stones?

[_Runtu]

I've never heard of this, but history is full of examples of sincere, but completely mistaken, belief. Think of leeching, which was used for centuries as a remedy for all kinds of things.

The sincerity of the believer is no indicator of the validity of belief.

[_mfbukowski]

Bottom line for me: Whether Joseph Smith was a fraudster or whether he really believed in what he was doing cannot fully answer the question of whether the LDS church is true. If the argument you make to yourself is that since the Church couldn't possibly be one large 15-million-person conspiracy, then it must be true... you might be looking at it the wrong way.

This is an interesting assertion.

Let's take a hypothetical Christian leader named John Jones who claims to have visions and alters some important Christian doctrine. He delivers documents claimed to be revelations from God to back up his claims.

Some 15 million people have religious experiences which claim to have brought them peace, have brought them closer to Christ, and have changed their lives and those of their families for the better.

What criterion of "truth" would you use to say that this movement is "not true"?

[Guest]

The sincerity of the believer is no indicator of the validity of belief.

What is a good indicator of the "validity of belief"?

Edit: let me clarify that a bit- I am not talking about science- I am talking about religious belief of course!

As a good postmodernist, what is your view of religious "truth" if it is not based in something close to "the sincerity of the believer"?

Perhaps you answer is that there is "no truth" at all- yet your comment above implies that one belief may be more "valid" than another.

[_harmony]

Let's take a hypothetical Christian leader named John Jones who claims to have visions and alters some important Christian doctrine. He delivers documents claimed to be revelations from God to back up his claims.

Some 15 million people have religious experiences which claim to have brought them peace, have brought them closer to Christ, and have changed their lives and those of their families for the better.

What criterion of "truth" would you use to say that this movement is "not true"?

"leader"... relatively few people thought so.

"claims"... validity? proof?

"vision"... (you realize he managed to lose the most important one?)

"alters"... not so much

"important"... only to the believer

"Christian"... oh please, let's not open that bag again

"doctrine"... all of which were changed at some point...

"delivers"... oh, so you agree none of it was "translated"?

"revelations"... lost or invented... you choose

"from God"... ummm... no...

"back up"... what back up? where's the proof? the evidence?

"Some 15 million people have religious experiences which claim to have brought them peace, have brought them closer to Christ, and have changed their lives and those of their families for the better."... how many Catholics are there? Jews? Muslims?

truth? or not truth? It's all in the eye of the beholder/believer.

[_mfbukowski]

truth? or not truth? It's all in the eye of the beholder/believer.

Well you finally got somewhere with all that.

THAT is precisely the point. So if 15 million people think it is "true"- who are you to argue with them?

[_harmony]

truth? or not truth? It's all in the eye of the beholder/believer.

Well you finally got somewhere with all that.

THAT is precisely the point. So if 15 million people think it is "true"- who are you to argue with them?

Catholics

Jews

Muslims

Who are you to argue with them?

[_mfbukowski]

THAT is precisely the point. So if 15 million people think it is "true"- who are you to argue with them?

Catholics

Jews

Muslims

Who are you to argue with them?

Huh?

Why do you think I am arguing with them? I'm not!

There are more of them than there are Mormons!

So you are saying both that "truth is in the eye of the beholder" but that these other beliefs are right? Or wrong? Or are you trying to tell me what I believe as a Mormon?

Oh- I bet that's it!

Let me guess the next line: "You cannot believe that truth is in the eye of the beholder AND be a Mormon!"

Gosh, I could carry on the rest of this conversation all by myself, I have been through it so many times!

And yet Mormons are supposed to have their own "testimonies" of the truth. Isn't that precisely "in the eye of the beholder"??

[_huckelberry]

mfbukowski, I do not think there is a lot of purpose to arguing with Mormons. The subject matter for me because I have to deal with the fear confusion and cynicism that growing up Mormon created in my mind.

For me it was malignant though all of the uncertainty about truth it creates can have some impetus to ask questions and try to understand. Perhaps somebody takes comfort in the ambiguity of Mormon totalitarian mind demands. I think it is hell.